Search form

The August recess is in full swing. Here's the latest health care news:

More Hedging On The Public Option

The big news nationally is that the White House hinted again yesterday
at a willingness to drop a public insurance option from the health care
reform ...

The August recess is in full swing. Here's the latest health care news:

More Hedging On The Public Option

The big news nationally is that the White House hinted again yesterday
at a willingness to drop a public insurance option from the health care
reform packages if it means ultimately passing a bill. While
progressives activists have pushed hard for a robust government-run
program to compete with private insurers, Health and Human Services
Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told CNN that a public option was “not the essential element” for reform. This isn't the first time
the Obama administration has hedged on this point, but at this stage in
the negotiations, it should send a strong signal to moderate and liberal Democrats where the president currently stands.

In its place, Senate Democrats will likely turn to non-profit cooperatives, an alternative already favored by the Gang of Six senators on the Finance Committee. Ezra Klein's June interview with Sen. Kent Conrad is a good place to get caught up on the specifics. The New York Times' briefly explains the idea here:

The co-op, modeled after rural electric and agricultural
cooperatives in Mr. Conrad’s home state, would offer insurance through
a nonprofit, nongovernmental consumer entity run by its members. Mr.
Axelrod said one downside of a co-op, from Mr. Obama’s point of view,
was that it might be unable to “scale up in such a way that would
create a robust” competitor to private insurers.

Will that concession go far enough to win the support of moderate
Democrats who remain on the fence? None of Illinois' still undecided
lawmakers -- including Reps. Debbie Halvorson, Bill Foster, and Melissa
Bean -- have explicitly identified the public option as the major
problem with the bills working through Congress. However, if they felt
the inclusion of a government-run plan left them vulnerable to
overblown conservative attacks about expanding government, co-ops could
give them some leeway while preserving some choice on the private
market. Of course, the full House would still face a vote on a bill
that includes the public option; it would likely be gutted in the
Senate version, where moderate votes are really needed, and then
negotiations would begin over specifics in conference committee. And
the entire package could crumble if progressives in the House revolt,
like Rep. Jan Schakowsky and her colleagues vowed to do last month. Stay tuned.

Sun-Times Whacks Biggert Over Scare Tactics

Last week, Rep. Judy Biggert deliberately distributed literature
at a town hall falsely claiming that the health care bills working
through Congress would lead to end-of-life euthanasia. Admitting that
the statement was "a little inflammatory," she told the Daily Herald that "I probably wrote it when I was mad." Today, the Sun-Times editorial board nails Biggert and other conservatives for promoting these ridiculous lies:

Democratic health-care reform will require "end-of-life
counseling for seniors that might encourage them to give up when facing
serious illness," read a flier passed out by U.S. Rep. Judy Biggert of
Hinsdale. Now, [Iowa Sen. Chuck] Grassley and other conservative
Republican politicians want to make sure seniors are denied what is in
fact a reasonable and desirable benefit. They have removed coverage for
end-of-life counseling from the Senate's version of the health reform
bill.

Shame on all of them. [...]

When mainstream, usually respected politicians pick up the lie,
repeat it and lend it their credibility, they do a massive disservice
to the very people they claim they are helping -- senior citizens who
have an understandable anxiety about any potential changes to their
health-care benefits.

During WTTW's Chicago Tonightweek in review show
on Friday, the first 10 minutes were devoted to health care. The segment focused in large part on what Obama can do to
combat the misinformation about his administration's health care
proposals. Conspicuously absent from the debate was any mention of the
media's role in fact-checking politicians who play fast and lose with
the facts. Watch it here:

Sen. Dick Durbin is taking some shots from editorial boards in the
state for his decision not to hold a town hall meeting on health care
reform. From the Daily Herald:

But it also seems like it's such a transcendent issue for all of
us that our representatives in Washington ought to make an attempt to
listen to their constituents. It also seems to us that any public
hearing could be controlled easily enough by rules of decorum that are
stated in advance and then enforced. Local government does this all the
time.

Sen. Durbin is, presumably, the second most powerful person in the U.S. Senate.

If that's the case, what is he afraid of?

The State Journal-Register agrees, arguing
that Durbin and fellow congressmen Rep. John Shimkus "should reconsider
and face their constituents." But the paper also notes that town hall
participants need to change their temperament if they want lawmakers to
take their concerns seriously:

This is one of the most complex and important issues to face the
American people in decades. This page doesn’t have an opinion today on
which approach will work best. We do know the American people need to
rationally talk with their representatives and senators, continue to
educate themselves and be willing to listen when answers are provided.